Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another German battleship graces the MILHIST A-class review (though not the last, to be sure). Friedrich der Grosse was the fleet flagship for the majority of World War I and saw extensive service during the conflict. Like most of the other capital ships of the German Imperial Navy, the vessel was scuttled at Scapa Flow after the war and later broken up for scrap. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure the article meets our criteria and to prepare the article for an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments;

My main concern is that "construction" section is too brief. I often find myself saying in warship A-class reviews that we need more information on the "why" as well as the "what" - and to be honest I think this is a bit of an issue for Kaiser class battleship as well. For instance, there we have a mention of the fact that the class were the first German battleships with turbines, but no discussion of why turbines were used; description of the armament but no discussion of why those calibres were chosen or what the role of the secondary armament was. I think this kind of thing is really quite important for top-notch articles.
I really don't like to have a lot of overlap between the class and ship articles (though I do agree that the class article could use some work - I wrote it before Staff's book, which has a great deal of this kind of information, was published. At some point, I'm going to go through the older articles and update them accordingly. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knoop and Schmolke go into a bigger discussion about fuel efficiency of the different power plants available at the time. The choice for turbines was not that obvious. I recommend reading it. Koop and Schmolke was published in 1999 (10 years before the article was written), but then again it is an unreliable German source... MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to mention that I am not the biggest fan of Osprey books. I own a number of them and they are a good supplement to the other literature I own but they tend to lack preciseness. Generally speaking, I get a condensed overview of what happened out of them. But for detail you have to look elsewhere. This is my personal opinion here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Osprey books are generally only so-so, but Staff's books are always highly detailed. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd feel quite reluctant to support an article at A-class which didn't have this material in it. If the reason for the absence of the material is that it duplicates the class article, then fair enough. But if this kind of thing is omitted entirely, we're not covering the subject well enough. The Land (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A deficiency in the class article shouldn't cause problems for this one - this type of information generally is not included in individual ship articles, unless they were unique vessels. Parsecboy (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In particular armour is scarcely mentioned in the "construction" section and so there is no context to the figures quoted in the infobox, which are maximums.
Added a couple of lines on the armor protection. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3rd para of construction: The 8.8cm AA guns would not have been in the original design. At what stage were they added?
It's unclear when the guns were added - Conways, Groner, and Staff do not give a date or even a year. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How much did she cost?
Added. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend comparing the price of 45,802,000 Marks to the annual salary of a metal worker at the time who earned 1,366 Marks annually. This would help me understand the order of magnitude this ship had cost. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Service history; an indication here that she became flagship upon commissioning would be good (it's in the lead but should probably be mentioned at this stage too).
This was in the construction section, but I agree that it fits better in the service section. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Subsequent operations" heading looks slightly odd, preceding as it does "Operation Albion" - perhaps "Subsequent North Sea operations" would be clearer?
Made the change. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But generally speaking the service history section is pretty good, well done. Particularly like the map of ships scuppered at Scapa!

Regards, The Land (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments You know the drill. - Dank (push to talk)

  • You know, in our last Imperial Navy battleship, I really liked Rumiton's reasoning on "His German Majesty's Ship", to avoid confusion with the British navy. Now I'm not seeing it; sure, I like "His German Majesty's Ship" if it's sitting by itself somewhere, but this is clearly a translation ... who's going to look at all that German, before and after, and confuse this with a British ship? And I think we're constrained that when we say or imply something is a translation, it should actually be a translation ... not necessarily literal, but at least a good translation. I haven't seen any sources yet that translate that phrase that way. So I'm going to leave "His Majesty's Ship" alone. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't we add, at least in a footnote, that SMS abbreviates Seiner Majestät Schiff which translates to "His Majesty's Ship". At least this way the reader would get a clue what the letters SMS stand for. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor if Nate is ... he says he's making some changes tonight, I'll have a look then. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for a solution: I left "German" out, and added a footnote directly after the translation with the link to Seiner Majestät Schiff. Do you think that makes it clear while not over-complicating the issue? Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't take a position, but some Brits have expressed the opinion that it's a bit disrespectful to mention people who have been knighted (Beatty) without putting "Sir" at the first occurrence.
    • Yeah, I'm a typical Yank who wouldn't think of adding it, but that makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm generally not paying attention to links, but you may want to link "breech blocks".
  • Support per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Question My English is not that good but shouldn't "ammunition" be replataced with "munition"? According to the WP article on ammunition it states "The collective term for all types of ammunition is munitions." The sentence "The rest of the fleet entered Wilhelmshaven, where Friedrich der Grosse and the other ships still in fighting condition replenished their stocks of coal and ammunition", according to my interpretation, would make munition more suitable. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either would probably work, but I think "munition" is too general for this context. "Munition" can mean bombs, rockets, and other projectiles, while ammunition generally refers only to gun-fired projectiles. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I understand that German terms, German sources, etc. are to be avoided as much as possible (this was made very clear to me), but please put yourselves in the shoes of a reader who is unfamiliar with this subject. I read the section on the "Battle of Jutland" three times now and I still have difficulties figuring out who the Germans were and who the British were. You use terms like "V Division, III Battle Squadron", "I Division, I Battle Squadron", "1st Battlecruiser Squadron", "I Scouting Group", "2nd Light Cruiser Squadron", "I Squadron ships". You have to be very familiar with the subject and only in context can you figure out who was who. Have a look at sentences like "At 17:30, König's crew spotted both the I Scouting Group and the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron approaching." I think in this context a linguistic twist would help me understand much better. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think your solution for Lindemann (of using a translation section) would work here. There I could translate the German unit names (III Geschwader, Hochseeflotte, etc.). I don't have much time at the moment, so this will have to wait until later today. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another solution could be to use a general footnote at the beginning of the section to point out that German units are denoted with Roman numerals while British formations have Arabic numerals (this is fairly typical at least in English works). Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about "Cape Skadenes", are you sure it is not "Cape Skudenes"? There is a lighthouse off of Skudenes Norway. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Staff says Skadenes, but it could be a typo on his part, or just a different spelling. I'm going to assume that it's the case (it's too close to be a coincidence). Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bålholmen is near Balestrand. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for the record, and yes you have tried to explain this before so I'm not making a big deal of this because to the English speaking world it makes sense, nevertheless I still can't come to terms with the fact that you spell the same German word Groß, Großer once with the ß and then again with a double S. In way it is mixing British spelling and US spelling in one and the same article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ship disposed with the inefficient hexagonal turret arrangement of previous German battleships; instead, three of the five turrets were mounted on the centerline, with two of them arranged in a superfiring pair aft." What was inefficient about the hexagonal turret arrangement and what made the new superfiring pair better?. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is something that should be in the class article (I'm not sure why I didn't explain this there). When I get around to reworking the older articles as I mentioned to The Land above, I'll rectify this. Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of her commanders, KzS Kurt Graßhoff (1869–1952), later became a Konteradmiral MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any context on when he served as the ship's commander? I'd need a source for this as well. Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info you may want to add even though they are from not reliable German sources :-)
    • christioned by Princess Alexandra Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, speach by Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz, source Knoop and Schmolke page 86 MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of 8.8 cm guns does not match data from Knoop and Schmolke page 81. nor data from Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 3 page 125. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do they say? And also, do they give when the 8.8 cm AA guns were added? Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Koop and Schmolke claim (page 81) that initially 8 x 8.8cm fast loading L/45 in MPL casemates were installed. During the war (no date mentioned) they were replaced with 4 x 8.8cm Flak L/45 in MPL C/13. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 3-shaft expansion engine as stated correctly were manufactured by AEG, the name of the firm was Franz Anton Egells Berlin at the time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I made an error, the engines were made by AEG Schichau. Knoop and Schmolke page 83 MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ships bell was handed over to frigate F216 Scheer (the former HMS Hart) on 30 August 1965 source Knoop and Schmolke page 89 MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Koop and Schmolke speak of 6 "suitcase boilers"? Fire-tube boiler Kofferkessel fired by 30 fires, pressure of 2–3 Technical atmosphere, German atü and three generators producing 30–36 kW MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Groner says 16 naval boilers with 30 fireboxes at 16 atmospheres, and four double-turbo generators and two diesel generators with a total output of 1800 kW at 225 V. Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oops I took the data from the namesake Panzerschiff Friedrich der Große. SMS Friedrich der Große had 16 boilers (Marine-Wasserrohrkessel) with 28 coal fires, augmented with oil fires. Knoop and Schmolke page 83. This rendered a heating area of 5950 square meters at 16 atmospheres. The generators were two "Turbo generators" TurboDynamo and two diesel generators for 1,800kW. Knoop and Schmolke page 84.
    • Friedrich der Große had anti torpedo protection nets. These were removed after the batte of Jutland. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Knoop and Schmolke page 83 list in detail the fire control system of the Kaiser class. This should be included. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't like to go into too much technical detail in the ship articles - this should be reserved for the class article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Italian King Victor Emanuel and his wife Elena of Montenegro visited Friedrich der Große at the Kiel Week in 1913. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Action of 25–26 May 1915 as well as 19–20 October are missing MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Staff doesn't mention either - do you have any information on these? Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • British Admirality sold the ship for 750 GBP to Cox & Danks Ltd on 27 June 1934, towed to Rosvth by Zwarte Zee, Witte Zee and Indus on 31 July 1937. It arrived on 5 August scrapping started on 25 August MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll need a page number. Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Knoop and Schmolke page 89; According to Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz, v. 3 page 147 the bell was handed over to the German Naval Attaché KsZ Kray in Faslane on 30 August 1965. The Scheer then took the bell to Wilhelmshaven where it was on display in the tradition room of the Ebkeriege naval barracks before it went to Glücksburg (building 6) MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should mention the stories behind Max Reichpietsch and Albin Köbis in conjunction with Friedrich der Große. Also noteworthy (my opinion) is that Alfred Saalwächter served on Friedrich der Große. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll see what I can do with the first two - I've seen them referenced before. Do you have a source for the third? Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I do but I'm not sure if you can use it, it is German: "Dörr, Manfred (1996). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Überwasserstreitkräfte der Kriegsmarine—Band 2:L–Z (in German). Osnabrück, Germany: Biblio Verlag. ISBN 3-7648-2497-2." MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a mention for Reichpietsch - Köbis served aboard SMS Prinzregent Luitpold and should be mentioned there. I question whether its important to note that Saalwächter served aboard the ship. You can take it for granted that every admiral served on a variety of ships in their career - with the exception of the really big names (like Raeder or Dönitz), it's noteworthy to mention the ships in their bios, but not vice versa (at least in my opinion). Parsecboy (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crew size according to Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz, v. 3 page 125 was 1,084. According to Knoop and Schmolke page 80, who detail this a bit more, 41 officers and 1,043 sailors, Friedrich der Große, as a fleet flag ship had a crew of 1,163 MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, according to Gröner, the standard crew was 41 officers and 1,043 enlisted (which agree with both), but state that as a squadron flagship, an additional 14 officers and 80 enlisted were added, which would be a total of 1,178 (he doesn't give figures for the fleet flagship). I find it odd that a squadron flagship would have a larger command staff than the fleet flagship. Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - excellent article in the series. Be careful translating high quality German sources which might be considered WP:OR by a FA reviewer and should be limited; the two Koop references in this one are kind of extreme minute details (the name of the ship which returned the bell? who attended the launching? really?) probably not in line with WP:Summary and I wouldn't have noticed if they were deleted. Also, I personally want to know why no one has translated Koop into English but that's isn't your problem! Kirk (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Why are certain items in the infobox bolded? Looks very odd.
    • You know, I can't tell you. Was probably just experimenting with presentation. I've removed the bolding. Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably worth linking squadron, fitting out, turbine, boiler, nautical mile, anti-torpedo net, hexagonal, Austria-Hungary, knot, gun turret.
    • Most done - was there a link you had in mind for hexagonal? Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I think I found a link that I added to one of your FACs for one of the older BBs with that layout, but I'm having a brain cramp right now and nothing comes to mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When discussing the armor belt, amidships (with a link) would read better than "in the central portion".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-ord comment: this review is due to be listed for closing in two days (28 day rule). Are there any outstanding comments? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, no, there are no unaddressed comments. Thanks for checking, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've sent MisterBee and The Land a message asking them to take another look. I just want to make sure that they are happy that their comments have been addressed. I'll look to close it in the next 36 hours or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there's been no response, so I will close this now. As the article has three explicit supports and it appears that the remaining comments have been addressed, I have closed it as successful. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/SMS_Friedrich_der_Grosse_(1911)&oldid=425550272"